Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

The Early Word: Candidates Talk Up Experience

By Ariel Alexovich December 28, 2007 8:20 amDecember 28, 2007 8:20 am

All of the presidential hopefuls yesterday expressed their reactions to the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. But they also used the moment to emphasize their own crisis preparedness and experience as talk on the trail shifted back, at least momentarily, to foreign policy.

News of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination came just hours before Sen. Barack Obama delivered what his campaign had billed as the “closing argument” in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday, forcing his campaign to scramble to incorporate the Pakistani opposition leader into his message of change.
For his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Bhutto’s death helped underscore the line she has been driving home for months — about who is best suited to lead the nation at a time of international peril. In her comments Thursday, Clinton described Bhutto in terms Obama (D-Ill.) could not: as a fellow mother, a pioneering woman following in a man’s footsteps, and a longtime peer on the world stage.

The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two just a week before Iowans will decide the first contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

While aides said Clinton was anxious not to appear to be politicizing Bhutto’s death, they nonetheless saw it as a potential turning point in the race with Obama and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.).

Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, ruffled the Clinton campaign’s feathers when he made comments that tied her vote for the Iraq war to the strength of the terrorist network in Pakistan. The Times’s Jeff Zeleny spoke with Mr. Axelrod later:

In a telephone interview on Thursday evening, Mr. Axelrod said it was indisputable that the war took the United States’ attention away from fighting terrorists in Pakistan.

“I think she should be held accountable as everyone should who was involved in that vote for a flawed policy,” Mr. Axelrod said. “That’s a long way from saying that she bears responsibility for the events of today. That would go too far.”

Among other Democratic contenders, Biden has frequently chastised his rivals for paying too much attention to a potential nuclear program in Iran than to the problems of a destabilized Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons. He noted that in recent months he requested Musharraf provide “effective security” for Bhutto and others.

Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations and a frequent critic of Musharraf’s efforts to combat terrorism, said the Pakistani president “has failed and his attempts to cling to power are destabilizing his country. He must go.”

Ms. Bhutto’s death coincided with John McCain’s return to Iowa, a state he had mostly ignored recently as low polling numbers led him to invest the bulk of his time or money in New Hampshire. The Arizona senator, a longtime member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said that his foreign policy experience would make him the best candidate to enter the Oval Office and immediately take action, reports The Times’s Michael Luo.

Mr. McCain talked about the unrest in Pakistan, the importance of that country in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. He then pivoted quickly to his readiness to tackle the situation, saying that he had “been to Waziristan,” a tribal area in Pakistan that is a haven for the Taliban, and that he knew President Pervez Musharraf well.

Mr. McCain is on a three-day swing through Iowa, and then plans to return to New Hampshire, where he has essentially staked his campaign for the Republican nomination.

Although there had been speculation that he was seeking to take advantage of his rise in some polls in New Hampshire to make a last-ditch push in Iowa, McCain staff members said this swing had been planned for some time, even before he was endorsed several weeks ago by The Des Moines Register, the state’s largest newspaper. His campaign here remains bare bones in many ways, although it has about a dozen paid staff members, double what it had during the summer after the McCain campaign stalled and he was forced to lay off employees.

Mike Huckabee came under fire yesterday for suggesting that Pakistan was still under martial law, even though that period ended a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Huckabee, however, is still winning voters through his dynamic, folksy speaking style (the Los Angeles Times says his “overall effect is something like a political self-help guru willing to lead the way to a stronger, more faith-filled society”) and his fair tax plan, says the Washington Post.

To former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, supporting a national retail sales tax is more than a policy proposal. It has provided much-needed muscle for his campaign, filling rallies and events with fervent supporters hoping to replace the entire income and payroll tax system.

There’s one problem: A national sales tax won’t work, at least not according to tax experts and economists of all political stripes. Even President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform dedicated a chapter of its 2005 final report to dismissing such proposals.

Rudy Giuliani, who touted his 9/11 credentials as evidence that he can handle a crisis, finds himself in another one of sorts as details are coming out in The Times regarding his work as a lawyer defending the drug OxyContin.

But his work for Purdue, the company’s first and longest-running client, provides a window into how he used his standing as an eminent lawyer, a Republican insider and a national celebrity to aid a controversial client and build a business fortune.

A former top federal prosecutor, Mr. Giuliani participated in two meetings between Purdue officials and the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the agency investigating the company. Giuliani Partners took on the job of monitoring security improvements at company facilities making OxyContin, an issue of concern to the D.E.A.

If you don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire where you can fully understand just how often campaign ads infiltrate the airwaves, The Times’s Patrick Healy takes a look at some advertising strategies.

The campaigns are still unsure whether to use negative advertisements against opponents here. For now, they are calibrating their mainly positive advertisements to reflect the themes playing out here: change vs. status quo politics, new ideas on domestic concerns and Iraq vs. old thinking, the need for fresh leadership, and their respect for the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses.

The looong campaign season takes its toll not only on the candidates, but their staffs of thousands, writes the Washington Post.

So far, the 2008 presidential campaigns have employed more than 3,000 paid workers and countless volunteers, who will next year be joined by thousands of others working on congressional campaigns — a legion of operatives living on four hours’ sleep, Triple Whoppers and a hefty supply of Red Bull.

“These are greedy institutions,” says Halcy Bohen, a psychologist who’s counseled dozens of political types over her 27 years in Washington. “They eclipse everything else. Often the election work crowds out the family and the personal lives. And there are prices to pay.”

* Joe Biden speaks at caucus countdown events in Adel and Decorah, Iowa, and at the Featherlite Center at Howard County
Fairgrounds in Cresco. In the evening, he heads to caucus countdown events in Waverly and Waterloo, Iowa.

* Hillary Clinton attends events in Story City and Webster City, Iowa. Later, she speaks at an event at the North Iowa Fairgrounds in Mason City, Iowa.

* Chris Dodd attends the “Caucus for Results Kickoff Celebration” at his Iowa headquarters in Des Moines. Later, he attends “Caucus for Results Celebrations” in Clive and Council Bluffs, Iowa. He also appears on the “Situation Room.”

* John Edwards holds a roundtable discussion with undecided caucusgoers in Independence, Iowa, this morning. In the
afternoon, he holds an event in Dubuque, and another roundtable discussion with undecided caucusgoers in Clinton, Iowa. In the evening, he holds a meet and greet in Tipton, and an “America Rising” rally in Davenport, Iowa.

* Rudy Giuliani attends an endorsement press conference at the Orange County Law Enforcement Memorial in Orlando. Later, he holds a town hall meeting and delivers remarks at the Opera House at the Fort Museum in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

* Mike Huckabee holds campaign events in Pella, and Ottumwa, Iowa.

* John McCain holds a meet and greet at The Ivy Bake Shoppe in West Burlington, Iowa, and a media availability at Manchester Regional Airport in Manchester, N.H. Later, he holds a health care town hall forum and a Young Professional town hall, and visits his campaign headquarters in Manchester.

*Fred Thompson, on the trail in Iowa, participates in a radio town hall event in Pella. Later, he tours downtown Oskaloosa and drops by the Oskaloosa Herald. He holds a “Meet Fred Thompson” event in Ottumwa, then tours downtown Fairfield and drops by the Fairfield Daily Ledger. In the evening, he holds a “Meet Fred Thompson” event in Fort Madison.

Bhutto’s tragic death reinforces the fact that among the Democratic contenders, the candidate best prepared to “hit the ground running” in the event of international crisis is Hillary Clinton. Imagine this event, or something comparable, taking place a year from now, shortly after the inauguration of our next (Democratic) President and ask yourself which candidate you would feel most comfortable with at the helm? Obama? I don’t think so. He seems very smart, well-intentioned, and I’m sure he would collect a group of very good advisors around him eventually. EVENTUALLY. But who would be making the key decisions on January 16, 2009?

Right, Carolyn. Because in the time of a crisis just what we need is someone in power who has to take a poll before she decides whether to cross the street. We need someone who was wrong on Iraq and wrong on Iran in charge making decisions on Pakistan. Gosh, that makes lots of sense.

So called baptist minister huck about 2 weeks behind in foreign policy thinks Pakistan still under martial law.This guy is scary and who will be his cabinet members if elected,evangelical holier than thous.Scary.

i’m so sick of the phrase “hit the ground running” and “ready to lead on day one.” the truth of the matter is that no one is qualified for president unless they have been president.

carolyn, how can you be comfortable with hillary at the helm when she hasn’t made any of the right decisions with her so-called experience? not only has she made the wrong foreign policy decisions, she has not made the case that she can break free of special interest groups and create systems that benefit the american worker. she takes in special interest money like her life depended on it.

in addition, she has run the most negative campaign on the democratic side. starting with her “naive, irresponsible” comment to norman hsu’s donor scandal all the way to shaheen’s drug references. hillary is old washington and will only galvanize the republican party.

Hillary’s experience is a MYTH that has already been debunked. There is absolutely no evidence of Hillary’s foreign policy experience. She didn’t even have the proper security clearance to be in the room when decisions were being made. And, to make matters worse, she lacks good judgment. Trumped up experience, poor judgment and divisive politics …… not a winning formula.

I was in Pakistan, on business, in 1993 when B. Bhutto was running to regain the prime ministership … I remember thinking how impossibly unstable the country felt… I remember going to the Holiday Inn (!) in Islamabad and seeing families where all the women had on beautiful burkas with only the tiniest slits for eyeholes… this is really a primitive country… camels and donkeys were still used widely for transport…

As to the ability to lead our nation with important challenges facing us…

It’s Barack Obama, of course, for a number of reasons…

Here is one… when you have been in these third world countries, on the ground, you begin to realize that assumptions we make about the order and stability of a society are not appliciable… different forces hold sway there… poverty, ignorance and the misguided use of religion can easily sway the people…

This is very different than taking tea with the ruling classes in the cloistered confines of the governmental palaces… in fact the disperity in Pakistan between the average person and the elite is tremendous…

Senator Obama made the right calls on Pakistan without the benefit of the private intelligence available to the President…

The world is complex… it will take a President of great intellect and judgement to guide us right… that leader is Senator Obama… and on January 20, 2009 I look forward to seeing him take the oath of office…

Carolyn, how you can spin this to benefit Clinton is beyond me. It’s Clinton’s support of and voting with this disastrous administration that has seen to it that Al Queda grew more potent and committed this crime. Had we stayed focused on Al Queda instead of going off into this adventure in Iraq . . .

And her experience tells her to declare Iran a terrorist organization . . . just weeks before we learn that Iran stopped its nuclear program four years ago? Puhleeze. On every major vote HRC has been wrong. She’s a hawk just like GWB so please tell me how she can handle these situations. I guess she’d launch a war against Turkey. I’m so sick of the Bush foreign policy. I certainly don’t want Bush-lite.

Also, when HRC came under pressure and attacks from the Democrats, she performed horribly. She folded and went running to Bill to save her. Some commander in chief!

This is no time for a novice like Obama to sit in the White House. Hillary Clinton has the broad experience to hit the ground running when she becomes president. She has the experience we need in our next leader.

None of them has a clue about the real meaning of foreign policy. Shaking hands as a First Lady or having met a few other leaders several years ago, or having made hundred trips abroad, do not make someone an expert. First quality: be able to listen to others, and understand them, their culture, visions and differences. With the exception of Ron Paul, all candidates just continue the typical arrogance of the White House, telling other countries what to do….and again, naively promoting democracry abroad. In the future, we should name a foreigner in charge of our foreign policy.

My apologies for the insults to come, American is in the middle of a presidential campaign, and some people will be so crass as to turn your pain into a campaign moment. Please know that some here feel badly for America’s poor behavior.

Even Bhutto was in agreement with Obama’s policy of taking out terrorists in Pakistan if Musharraf wont. Obama has clear grasp of the current crisis. The fundamental changes necessary is not who can manage the crisis best but who can go further address the root cause of security issues in America and abroad. Going cuddly with Musharraf while he suppresses democracy in Pakistan will not make America safer.

It is extremely unfortunate that Benazir Bhutto had to die like that, but I disagree that Senator Clinton for whatever reason is the best one to handle the crisis. What did she do to help woo the pain yesterday? She said some kind words, but everybody did that. I can understand that she might have a deeper understanding of what Ms. Bhutto had gone through being a woman leader in that country. These events cannot be politicized, and in my humble opinion, I don’t think there is going to be a large percentage of voters next Thursday who take this event into account when they cast their vote.

Barack Obama’s response to the crisis both in his speech and in interviews with different networks have shown that he holds a deep understanding of the situation by explaining what we need to do. But again, I reiterate that this cannot be politicized.

And to answer your question, Carolyn, unfortunately George W. Bush will still be making the decisions on January 16, 2009.

Hillary Clinton will continue to follow Bush’s failed policies in Pakistan. When the USA had Bin Laden on the run, we should have followed him into Pakistan instead of running off on Bush’s get rich schemes in Iraq. Hillary followed Bush into Iraq without bothering to read the resolution even though all sensibilities screamed against the invasion. Is this the experience Hillary is bragging about? Joe Biden is miles ahead of Hillary as far as our foreign policies pertaining to Pakistan.

It appears if terrorist were responsible for the killing of Bhutto , Obama was right. He said we must go after the terrorist there and like the Iraq war he is right on Pakistan
“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn’t like the United States to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won’t act. And that’s the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan’s own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren’t going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

“The country is endangered by extremism…an organized minority had seized control of the levers of the state,” including officials who had connections to extremists going way back to the Afghan mujahedin war against the Soviets, which boosted such radicals as Osama bin Laden.”//www.newsweek.com/id/68826/page/1

“If Pakistan has no control in the tribal areas, then tomorrow foreign forces can come there,” Bhutto said in the northwestern city of Peshawar, a stronghold of religious parties. She was apparently referring to U.S. and NATO forces operating on the Afghan side of the border.//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314532,00.html

As usual he is prophetic. I guess judgment does triumph over experience as a first lady.

Sen. Clinton immediately jumped on the Bhutto story trying to use it to her advantage. She played the gender card and she tried to play the “experience” card. I don’t see the relevance of either to this situation.

If Sen. Clinton wants to argue that her “experience” makes her better qualified to handle events such as the Bhutto assassination then she has to be willing to discuss her JUDGMENT. It was Sen. Clinton’s judgment to vote for the Iraq war resolution and remove troops from Afghanistan to Iraq that has helped to create the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Had Sen. Clinton and others voted against the Iraq war resolution, our resources would have stayed in Afghanistan and we might have caught Bin Laden by now.

Instead, Sen. Clinton voted to shift our resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and now Bin Laden and all his pals continue to run free and taunt the US government – in addition to creating havoc all over the place.

So, if Sen. Clinton wants to use Bhutto’s death to bolster her “experience” argument, she must be willing to discuss and accept responsibility and accountability for her judgment. There’s no having your cake and eating it too here.

And exactly how does one gain foreign policy experience over eight years in the White House having never held a security clearance?

Once again, is the press allowing Sen. Clinton to argue that she has more “experience” when she actually means she has more exposure? I don’t know what experience you get from pillow talk, and without a security clearance, Sen. Clinton’s “exprience” couldn’t be gained from much else.

The point being that hillery has no experience and she can not hit the ground running because no one can pen down one of her positions. She blows in the wind and she did vote for the Iraqi war. She is so flipping flopping that she has even taken the term ‘change’ from her most underestimated opponent- Obama.
This is a true tradgedy for the world and democracy and she talks about the get out of dodge trip she took to avert the news of Bill’s latest piccadillo… I would bet that Bhutto had her number in a heartbeat–she was a tough bird and knew a fake when she met one.
THe true experience in this race is in the second level Dem’s and then McCain.

Barack Obama will be ready on day one, as our other young President’s were, – as John F Kennedy was, as Bill Clinton was. Judgement and Vision are two things you either have or you don’t have. You don’t gain judgment and vision over time. Barack Obama will win the 2008 presidential election.

No doubt if what we were voting for in 2008 was the leader with the most international experience, Joe Biden would win hands down. He began building his foreign policy credentials 35 years ago, when he first entered the Senate, a decade before McCain first entered the House. To many, however, white men (which I am) have provided seriously deficient decision making these past seven years, both internationally and domestically. Most Americans want real change, which the Democrats offer in the perspectives of either Obama or Hillary. But at a time of perilously high public and personal debt, and American leadership in the world at an historic low, most also want experience and proven competence. Hillary offes us both. We love the humanitarian and peace maker Jimmy Carter, but those of us old enough to remember know what a disaster he was as president. Like Obama, he elevated international human rights above national security. Like Obama, he campaigned on a message of inspiration, without substance to back it up. Like Obama, he lacked the experience to be president, and the republicans chewed him up and spat him out in a single term. Conversely, Hillary, and the political structure around her, represent the strongest and most competent political force of our generation. In the 90’s, Bill lead us to a balanced budget and declining debt, a fair and broad based economy that was raising all ships, international successes that included a successful war to end genocide in Europe without a single American combat death and lending support to the first ever elections in Russian history which saw a relinquishment of power through the democratic process, and American prestige in the world at a high. Throughout, Hillary was there, watching, learning, and offering her counsel. The pundits who attack Hillary keep trying to convince us it must be either-or, change or experience, but Hillary offers us both, at a time when we need both, change and experience.

Considering that the only major foreign policy decision ever made by Senator Clinton was to enable President Bush’s headlong rush to war in Iraq ,any talk of experience is rather subversive of the truth. Coupled with her husband’s debacle in Somalia, the pictures of them touting experience leaves the mind spinning to say the least. The segue from the first Clinton adiministration to the Bush White House was seamless indeed and the circle would be complete with the election of Senator Clinton. The methodology,the lack of probity,and the ability to manufacture truth are all there. It is the responsibility of the American people to at some point demand something other than their own indifference and to do something more than simply assuage their vote. Change begins from the people up

Have been tracking the number of times this blog has spiked negative comments about Clinton or disavowed her claim of experience..To date it is 16 times from myself and friends in the past 2 days. This is an outrage ….Once again the Clintons have dirty insiders. Shame on the NYT.

I respectfully disagree. I would like to point out that Senator Obama pointed out months ago that as a country we needed to focus our attention on the threat of insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of going to war in Iraq. What I respect about Obama is his focus on PREVENTION. He is a thoughtful, principled man with a quality I believe is important in our next President–judgment.

Senator Clinton strikes me as someone who bases her decisions on polling and public opinion, which heavily influence her strategy. If you don’t believe me, check her out her chief strategist, Mark Penn, he loves polls and lives by them. Unfortunately, they are not reliable indicators of what is really going on. Her decision to stand by President Bush and authorize the war in Iraq in 2002 (without reading the National Intelligence Estimate, I might add) was heavily influenced by public opinion. Her decision to take back her support of drivers licenses for immigrants, again heavily influenced by public opinion, not on the lives of thousands of her immigrant constituents here in NYC. We needed her to be a leader on this issue, not sacrifice her principles for a couple of votes.

I would not feel comfortable with Senator Clinton leading this nation. I would not feel comfortable with my life in her hands. I respect her for what she’s gone through in her life, but that does not qualify her to be President.

I do believe that Barack Obama has the judgement, experience, and vision to lead. I would put my life in his hands. I would knowing that his focus on prevention, on dialogue, on collaboration, on moving us forward not backward,is what we need to restore our standing in the world.

In a moment of crisis, you want judgment, decisiveness, and an ability to communicate clearly to the public. From Hillary Clinton’s past experiences, I don’t see evidence of these traits. When faced with a looming crisis in Iraq five years ago, Clinton buckled and chose war. But that mistake aside, a larger issue is whether she can translate her 8 years-long position watching crises unfold from the First Lady’s perch into creative, insightful judgment about strategy and tactics. From what we’ve seen of George W. Bush, does his 7 years of first-hand experience fumbling with a world in crisis provide any confidence that he will show a spark of intelligence that could lead the country correctly?

At this point, Hillary Clinton would probably be a good advisor providing details about the situation given her apparent work ethic and longtime exposure to similar situations (e.g., Andrew Card who sat with Bush through 9-11 and two wars). But as for coming to the right decision in the crunch, time-serving is useful only to a point.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…